<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2012 (1) TMI 402 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296811</link>
    <description>Preventive detention under COFEPOSA was examined against an existing suspension of the detenue&#039;s licence. The Court noted that the stated preventive purpose was to stop further similar offences, but the suspension had already neutralised that risk before the detention order was made. On that basis, the preventive object was treated as already achieved by the prior restriction, and the detention order could not be sustained.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 16 Jan 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 07 Aug 2021 15:50:42 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=651986" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2012 (1) TMI 402 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296811</link>
      <description>Preventive detention under COFEPOSA was examined against an existing suspension of the detenue&#039;s licence. The Court noted that the stated preventive purpose was to stop further similar offences, but the suspension had already neutralised that risk before the detention order was made. On that basis, the preventive object was treated as already achieved by the prior restriction, and the detention order could not be sustained.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 16 Jan 2012 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296811</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>